戴安娜·E·戴維斯/Diane E. Davis

徐知蘭 譯/Translated by XU Zhilan

在持續(xù)若干年的研究和為期幾個月的現(xiàn)場調(diào)研過程中，哈佛設(shè)計研究生院的研究團(tuán)隊針對推動墨西哥社會住房密集化的主要壁壘和影響因素展開了一項研究1）。最終形成了一份涉獵廣泛的研究報告，我們在其中辨認(rèn)出了一系列在土地利用、決策制定和住房建設(shè)等方面的挑戰(zhàn)因素，在政府提供抵押貸款的情況下，由于社會住房建設(shè)能被引導(dǎo)為促進(jìn)建設(shè)更可持續(xù)發(fā)展城市的推動力，這些困難是可以克服的2）。我們提出的結(jié)論原動力是對城市價值的創(chuàng)造過程和更合理的城市化進(jìn)程的強(qiáng)調(diào)，而不在于密集化過程本身。在這一思想的指導(dǎo)下，我們設(shè)計了一個新的制度平臺將會幫助墨西哥勞動者全國住房基金委員會達(dá)成這些目標(biāo)。其名稱為“城市價值創(chuàng)造平臺”，致力于為特定背景的社會住房項目申請和獲得資助，這些項目不應(yīng)把庇護(hù)空間理解為大規(guī)模的生產(chǎn)建設(shè)，而應(yīng)把它們理解為促進(jìn)更健康的鄰里社區(qū)聚集和幫助建設(shè)更高效運營城市的條件。我們將在下文總結(jié)推動這項研究的動因，并突出說明研究獲得的重大發(fā)現(xiàn)。

墨西哥勞動者全國住房基金委員會諸多挑戰(zhàn)的歷史淵源

和許多其他拉美國家一樣，墨西哥目前正面臨許多與城市快速增長相關(guān)的問題和挑戰(zhàn)，在那些經(jīng)由大規(guī)模住宅建設(shè)不斷拓展城市邊界的區(qū)域，問題尤為突出。住房主導(dǎo)的城市蔓延不僅產(chǎn)生了對城市公共服務(wù)設(shè)施的投資需求，這些投資使當(dāng)?shù)睾蛧业念A(yù)算變得非常緊張，它也加劇了碳排放的增長量并危害了環(huán)境的可持續(xù)性。在墨西哥的一些區(qū)域，城市蔓延還與日益增長的廢棄住宅有關(guān)，并應(yīng)部分歸咎于住宅建設(shè)選址離家庭成員、工作地點和能買到生活必需品的區(qū)域都比較遠(yuǎn)。所有這些因素都引導(dǎo)我們必須協(xié)同促進(jìn)城市密集化發(fā)展。墨西哥之所以會面臨這些問題，其原因之一是許多住宅開發(fā)者在建設(shè)過程中預(yù)先假設(shè)就業(yè)崗位數(shù)量會持續(xù)增長、建筑業(yè)會復(fù)蘇、銀行業(yè)將重振實力、家庭對基本居住空間的需求也會得到滿足等條件，并且整個國家的整體經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展?jié)摿σ矔纱送ㄟ^大規(guī)模住宅建設(shè)得到增強(qiáng)。

During several years of study and multiple months of fieldwork, a team from Harvard's Graduate School of Design conducted research on the major barriers and enablers to densification of social housing in Mexico.1）The final product was an extended research report in which we identified a series of land use, decision-making, and housing production challenges that should be overcome if government provided mortgage credits for social housing could be marshalled to build more sustainable cities2）. Our conclusions were informed by a desire to emphasise urban value creation and better urbanism rather than densification per se.With this in mind, we proposed a new institutional platform that will help INFONAVIT (National Workers Housing Authority) achieve these goals.Called the Urban Value Creation Platform, its aim was to solicit and enable support for context-specific social housing projects that envision shelter not as an object conceived through a mass production mentality, but rather, as a stimulus for assembling healthier neighborhoods and constructing more efficiently organised cities. In what follows, we summarise the motivations for the research and highlight our main findings.

Historical roots of INFONAVIT'S challenges

Like many Latin American countries, Mexico now faces a wide array of problems and challenges that are associated with the rapid growth of cities, particularly in those urban areas where city boundaries are being extended through the mass production of housing.Housing-led sprawl has not only produced growing demands for public investment in urban services that are straining local and national budgets, it also contributes to accelerating carbon emissions and undermined environmental sustainability. In some parts of Mexico,sprawl is also associated with an increase in abandoned housing, which itself owes partly to the tendency to locate housing in areas overly distant from family,jobs, and the basic goods of life. All this has led to more concerted efforts to foster densification. One reason Mexico faces these problems is because many housing its promoters have been working under the assumption that jobs are created, the construction industry is reinvigorated, banks are strengthened, families get their basic shelter needs met, and thus the country's overall economic development potential is strengthened by mass production of housing.

This may be true, but any assessment of gains or losses associated with the mass production of housing should not confined only to the economics of the housing sector. They also relate directly to transportation challenges and socio-spatial exclusion that are reinforced by sprawl. There has been little inter-institutional coordination among the different bureaucracies or government agencies to insure that new housing developments are placed in areas where services and infrastructure are already available,particularly when it comes to transportation services and schools, which unlike water, electricity, and roads remain beyond the purview of housing developers who elect to build in virgin areas of the city. Yet without transport access, citizens often find the daily costs of commuting outweigh the gains of home ownership,at times leading to housing abandonment in its worst-case scenario. Even for those who keep their new homes despite the long-distances, the quality of social life is poor because the developments remain largely abandoned during the daytime, some with the appearance of ghost-towns. Under such conditions,disorder and urban violence is a common occurrence,thus explaining why the social problems associated with mass production of housing have been greatest in the most socially and economically marginal urban settlements, where exposure to environmental ills and chronic poverty have also combined with informality and neglect to produce housing developments where lawlessness reigns. It may be worth noting that where a density of social life exists – as has been seen recently in the redevelopment of downtown areas of Mexico City, after the revitalisation and repurposing of formerly abandoned warehouses and other properties– there tends to be much less violence and crime.

These and other social problems that characterise the periphery of rapidly growing cities stand in contrast to the wide array of obvious gains seen in other sectors of the Mexican economy in recent years. The transition to neoliberalism and free-market economies generated new opportunities for cities and private investors to keep their economies growing through the development of finance, services, and real estate, even in the face of declining industrial firm competitiveness. But unfortunately, most of these city-builders have failed to pay attention to the social and spatial problems associated with sprawl; they have ignored the growing risks associated with environmental vulnerability and violence; and they have failed to make headway in transforming urban infrastructure so as to make the city work more efficiently and sustainably.

The bottom line is that there are multiple negative externalities associated with dramatic transformations in land use generated by the mass production of housing in the urban periphery.From inadequate infrastructure to environmental degradation to unchecked sprawl, rapidly urbanising cities often host a plethora of problems that persist despite – and sometimes because of – the growing income share accruing to middle classes and their newfound urban housing demands, as well as the nation's transition from a purely industrial economy to a financial and commercial economy. Whatever the origins, we must acknowledge that rapid and sprawling urbanisation is creating insurmountable problems. If we fail to build cities that distribute the gains associated with a renewed focus on the relationship between urban economic growth and urban redevelopment that the current moment clearly offers, future generations will suffer.

The challenge, in short, is to use housing to produce patterns of urbanisation that can prevent or mediate current risks – whether related to environment,violence, persistent poverty, or other vulnerabilities. The failure to do so will put Latin American cities on the path towards unsustainability, energy-related and otherwise.

One way to do so is to more actively involve urban planners in decisions about the production and location of housing, particularly if their aim is to help all levels of government formulate mid and long-term objectives to guide urban growth more efficiently and in a sustainable manner. A focus on producing housing that takes into account existent infrastructure and services investments (e.g. phasing, where and when investments will take place) could begin to help alleviate the severe financial strain on municipalities caused by rapid and disorderly urbanisation. In the absence of such measures, we will see continue to see urbanisation patterns that consume significant amounts of land per capita, and which will generate larger infrastructure installation and maintenance costs to extend water, sewage, and electricity networks over long distances in order to reach peripheral and less dense developments. To provide such necessities as waste collection and policing in new areas will required greater public sector expenditures, many of which are beyond the reach local authorities entrusted with such obligations.

2墨西哥梅里達(dá)地區(qū)低密度、 大規(guī)模建設(shè)的住房，由于位置不佳或其他問題，呈現(xiàn)半廢棄的破舊狀態(tài)/Low density,mass produced housing that is also dilapidated and semiabandoned, owing to bad location and other issues, Mérida,Mexico（攝影/Photos: Research Team of Harvard GSD）

3墨西哥梅里達(dá)地區(qū)低密度、 大規(guī)模建設(shè)的住房，由于位置不佳或其他問題，呈現(xiàn)半廢棄的破舊狀態(tài)/Low density,mass produced housing that is also dilapidated and semiabandoned, owing to bad location and other issues, Mérida,Mexico（攝影/Photos: Research Team of Harvard GSD）

4墨西哥梅里達(dá)地區(qū)低密度、 大規(guī)模建設(shè)的住房，由于位置不佳或其他問題，呈現(xiàn)半廢棄的破舊狀態(tài)/Low density,mass produced housing that is also dilapidated and semiabandoned, owing to bad location and other issues, Mérida,Mexico（攝影/Photos: Research Team of Harvard GSD）

事實也許如此，但任何對大規(guī)模住宅建設(shè)相關(guān)利弊得失的評估都不應(yīng)局限于住宅建設(shè)領(lǐng)域的經(jīng)濟(jì)因素。它們與城市交通面臨的挑戰(zhàn)和社會空間排斥的現(xiàn)象更有直接的關(guān)聯(lián)，城市蔓延加劇了這些問題。目前為止，在不同官僚機(jī)構(gòu)或政府辦事處之間幾乎還不存在任何體制內(nèi)的協(xié)調(diào)工作來確保新的住宅開發(fā)項目選址一定落在已有公共服務(wù)設(shè)施和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的區(qū)域，尤其是交通設(shè)施和教育設(shè)施——它們不像水、電管網(wǎng)和道路系統(tǒng)——對選擇城市處女地作為項目基地的住宅開發(fā)者來說，這些因素尚不在考慮范圍內(nèi)。然而如果住地交通不便，市民就會發(fā)現(xiàn)日常支出的通勤成本超出了獲得住宅所有權(quán)帶來的好處，在最差的情況下，有時甚至?xí)?dǎo)致住房遭到廢棄。而對那些克服了遠(yuǎn)距離通勤的困難，留在新家的人們來說，社會生活的品質(zhì)也很低劣，因為新開發(fā)的社區(qū)在白天大部分時間都無人居住，有些甚至看起來像鬼城。在這些區(qū)域，失序和城市暴力都時有發(fā)生；由此也解釋了為什么在經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會層面都最為邊緣化的城市聚居區(qū)，會出現(xiàn)最為嚴(yán)重的大規(guī)模住宅建設(shè)相關(guān)社會問題；這些區(qū)域還面臨最嚴(yán)重的環(huán)境惡化和長期貧困問題，加上住宅建設(shè)開發(fā)中的非正規(guī)程序和開發(fā)者漫不經(jīng)心的態(tài)度，一起共同導(dǎo)致了這些區(qū)域里違法行為猖獗不斷的現(xiàn)象。也許值得我們注意的是，在社會生活密集度達(dá)到一定程度的區(qū)域——正如最近在墨西哥城市中心開展的再開發(fā)項目中，對昔日的廢棄倉庫和其他建筑進(jìn)行復(fù)興和重新設(shè)計——暴力和犯罪的行為也更少出現(xiàn)。

這些問題和其他的社會問題已經(jīng)成為快速增長城市的外圍區(qū)域的主要特點，與墨西哥經(jīng)濟(jì)最近幾年在其他領(lǐng)域所取得的成就形成了鮮明對比。向新自由主義和自由市場經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)型的過程為城市和私人投資者提供了新的機(jī)會，讓他們能通過金融業(yè)、服務(wù)業(yè)和房地產(chǎn)的發(fā)展保持經(jīng)濟(jì)增長，甚至在面臨工業(yè)企業(yè)競爭力下降的情況下也不受影響。然而不幸的是，這些城市建設(shè)者中的大部分人都未能足夠重視與城市蔓延相關(guān)的社會問題和空間問題；他們忽視了和環(huán)境脆弱性和暴力行為有關(guān)的增長風(fēng)險；他們也未能在通過改變城市的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施來提高城市運作效率和可持續(xù)性發(fā)展方面取得進(jìn)步。

最重要的問題是在城市周邊進(jìn)行的大規(guī)模住宅建設(shè)導(dǎo)致了土地利用方式的劇烈轉(zhuǎn)變，從而產(chǎn)生了若干負(fù)面的外部性。從匱乏的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施到環(huán)境惡化、再到盲目的城市蔓延，快速推進(jìn)城市化進(jìn)程的城市區(qū)域通常都面臨太多不斷持續(xù)的問題——盡管中產(chǎn)階級的收入得到了增長，他們對新建住宅的需求也在增長；而國家在從單一的工業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)轉(zhuǎn)向金融和商業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)的過程中，有時也產(chǎn)生了一些問題。無論是什么原因，我們必須承認(rèn)快速蔓延的城市化進(jìn)程正在產(chǎn)生許多難以解決的問題。如果我們不能以全新的態(tài)度重視城市經(jīng)濟(jì)增長和目前正開展的城市再開發(fā)之間的關(guān)系，建設(shè)合理分配利益的城市，那么我們的后代將痛苦不堪。

其挑戰(zhàn)簡而言之就是如何利用住宅建設(shè)所形成的城市化進(jìn)程模式，來預(yù)防或調(diào)和目前所面對的各類風(fēng)險——無論是和環(huán)境、暴力行為、持續(xù)貧困還是其他的脆弱因素相關(guān)。如果不能做到這一點，那么拉美地區(qū)的城市就將走向在能源消耗和其他方面不可持續(xù)的方式。

方法之一是更主動地邀請城市規(guī)劃師參與住宅建設(shè)和選址的決策，如果他們的目標(biāo)是致力于幫助所有層級的政府形成中期和遠(yuǎn)期目標(biāo)、引導(dǎo)城市增長以更高效和可持續(xù)的方式發(fā)展，就更應(yīng)如此。住宅建設(shè)中對現(xiàn)有基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施和服務(wù)設(shè)施投資的重視（如采用分期規(guī)劃，確定投資的地點和時間）能幫助減輕快速無序的城市化進(jìn)程對地方政府造成的嚴(yán)重財政壓力。如果不采取這些措施，我們就會繼續(xù)看到城市化進(jìn)程模式消耗大量的人均土地?fù)碛辛?，并會為接通周邊密集度更低的開發(fā)項目地段的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，長距離地延伸給排水和電力官網(wǎng)，由此產(chǎn)生更大規(guī)模的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)和運營費用。在新建區(qū)域提供垃圾收集和警務(wù)這樣必要的公共服務(wù)則需要更多的公共部門支出，其中許多項目已經(jīng)超出了地方政府力所能及的范圍。

為未來行動提供新的思想范式

這種更加面向未來、主動協(xié)調(diào)城市與區(qū)域關(guān)系的社會住房建設(shè)方式應(yīng)該是什么樣的？如上所述，在監(jiān)督和制定住房建設(shè)法規(guī)的各個層面吸納城市規(guī)劃師的參與——不僅是在地方政府層面——會更可能把住房建設(shè)投資和現(xiàn)有的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施掛鉤，幫助形成更高效和可持續(xù)發(fā)展的城市化進(jìn)程。經(jīng)過規(guī)劃的集約化高密度住宅能加強(qiáng)有效的空間規(guī)劃，從而減少對基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的初始投資和運營維護(hù)成本。這些行動都會為明智的住房建設(shè)投資奠定長遠(yuǎn)的經(jīng)濟(jì)基礎(chǔ)，可以確定，這些投資除了創(chuàng)造居住價值，還能創(chuàng)造城市價值。如果住房建設(shè)投資相關(guān)的經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會和生活方式方面所獲的利益，能歸于更大范圍的鄰里住區(qū)、甚至整個城市，而不僅有利于個體的住宅購買者或銷售商，就產(chǎn)生了城市價值。這樣的價值創(chuàng)造要求訓(xùn)練有素的專業(yè)人士有意愿、并且有能力除了評估住宅建設(shè)的抵押貸款成本之外，對背景環(huán)境和位置也進(jìn)行評估；除此之外，還要求他們擁有全新的思維方式——不僅是有關(guān)土地利用規(guī)劃和住宅與基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施之間關(guān)系的全新思想，還包括有關(guān)住房本身意義和作用的理念——公共機(jī)構(gòu)和私人企業(yè)里的住房領(lǐng)域?qū)I(yè)人士尤其如此。

有關(guān)第一個問題，由專業(yè)人士對住房產(chǎn)業(yè)的監(jiān)督和管理必須采取必要的措施，逆轉(zhuǎn)下達(dá)投資的決策過程。相比起先為更多住房建設(shè)開啟綠燈，然后奮力確保交通和社會基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施條件能提供充足生活條件的方式，所有層級的政府機(jī)構(gòu)都必須優(yōu)先推動能把住宅生產(chǎn)和供應(yīng)結(jié)合在一起，由此創(chuàng)造出社會關(guān)系活躍和交通便捷的社區(qū)環(huán)境的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施投資項目。當(dāng)然，知易行難。這種“開倒車”的時序邏輯在像墨西哥這樣的拉丁美洲國家已有悠久的歷史，它應(yīng)歸咎于非正規(guī)程序的聚居區(qū)增長過程，這個過程加強(qiáng)了市場的供給經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)邏輯，權(quán)威部門也在其中努力修復(fù)由既成事實的自建住房增長造成的基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施鴻溝。但令人震驚的是，同樣的邏輯竟然也主導(dǎo)了正規(guī)的住房建設(shè)過程。其部分應(yīng)歸咎于城市區(qū)域中碎片化的政府管理組織邏輯。聯(lián)邦政府、州政府和地方政府在體制上都過于彼此疏遠(yuǎn)，在住宅的生產(chǎn)建設(shè)、監(jiān)督和金融投資方面關(guān)系尤為割裂。政府部門內(nèi)謎一般地充斥著各種彼此競爭和職能重疊的機(jī)構(gòu)，都受命關(guān)注住房問題或城市基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施問題，卻鮮有同時關(guān)注這兩方面的機(jī)構(gòu)，甚至幾乎沒有同時跨越這3層政府級別的部門。如果基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施的開發(fā)需為住房建設(shè)提供導(dǎo)向而非被動相應(yīng)需求，而我們也需要建設(shè)更可持續(xù)發(fā)展的城市，那么就必須首先改變這些零散的關(guān)系。

A new thought paradigm for future action

What might this more future-oriented,proactively coordinated urban and territorial approach to social housing look like? As just noted,involving urban planners in the monitoring and regulation of housing production at all levels –not merely at the municipality – will make it more likely that investments in housing are connected to existent infrastructure in ways that help create more efficient and sustainable urbanism. Planned,compact, and dense housing will reinforce efficient spatial arrangements that, in turn, can reduce initial capital investments in infrastructure as well as operating and maintenance costs. Such actions will go a long way in laying the economic groundwork for wise housing investments, which can be defined as investments that create urban value, not merely housing value. Urban value is generated when the economic, social, and lifestyle gains associated with investment in housing accrue to the larger neighbourhood and even city as a whole, and not merely to the individual buyer or seller of the house.Producing such value not only requires trained professionals with the willingness and capacity to assess the context and location of housing construction, not merely its mortgage costs. It also requires an entirely new way of thinking: not just about land use planning and the relationship between housing and infrastructure, but also about the meaning and role of housing itself, particularly among housing professionals in both public and private sectors.

With respect to the first issue, professionals overseeing and managing the housing industry must be willing to undertake the necessary steps to reverse the ordering of investment decision-making.Rather than giving the green light to more housing and then struggling to insure that transportation and social infrastructure to create livability follows,government agencies at all levels must prioritise infrastructural investments in ways that connect housing production and supply to create socially vibrant and well-connected environments. Of course, this is easier said than done. This "backwards"temporal logic has a long history in countries like Mexico the rest of Latin America, owing to the growth of informal settlements that reinforced a supply-side logic in which the authorities attempted to remediate the infrastructure gaps generated by the proliferation of self-built housing, but after-thefact. Surprisingly, however, the same logic prevails even when it comes to formal housing. Some of this owes to the fragmented organisational logic of governance in the urban sector. Federal, state,and local agencies are far too often institutionally divorced from each other, particularly with respect to the production, monitoring, and financing of housing. The sector is riddled with competing and overlapping agencies with mandates to focus on either housing or urban infrastructure, but rarely on both domains simultaneously and even more rarely across all three levels of governance. Changing these fragmented relationships must be a priority if infrastructural development is going to guide rather than respond to housing production, and cities are going to be built more sustainably.

Yet because institutional reforms of this magnitude are long-term goals that will be politically controversial and can take decades, advocates for more sustainable housing must also be able to look elsewhere for new thinking that can make a difference in the shorterterm. In that sense, those who care about cities and national economic prosperity must work together to make progress on the second objective noted above,which is to change the way citizens, bankers, urban planners, developers, and construction industry professionals think about housing. Most have been trained to consider housing as an object – shelter that protects against the elements; a dwelling typology that minimises construction costs and maximises user friendliness; or a built form whose materiality embodies a confluence of resource availabilities, design ingenuity,consumer desires, and market dynamics. Yet some of the most inspired housing experiments both past and present have been produced by those who conceptualise the house as a subject: conceived as a material construct capable of generating new social arrangements,producing alternative spatial geographies, and transforming city landscapes in ways that fashion a more vibrant urbanism and thus the creation of new possibilities for urban value creation.

One way to recognise the subjective dimensions of housing is to conceptualise the built form of a house in terms of its agency, or better said, to see housing in light of its social and economic value activation potential. For good or bad, any given housing typology will structure the daily lives of its inhabitants, a neighbourhood, and even an entire city – while also establishing the socio-spatial context in which residents are either isolated or integrated with other city dwellers. By assembling new social configurations through various building forms and their particular location, houses do much more than offer shelter. They also affect the social relations that occur in everyday exchanges within a household, a neighbourhood, or a city. By thinking beyond the house as mere object, and by identifying its relationship to and impacts on the exterior worlds around it, urban planners, real estate developers, and home builders will find new ways to innovate housing form and function, and not merely vice-versa. Acknowledging that the boundaries separating activities within and outside the house are permeable and at times artificially constructed will go a long way towards liberating a wide array of professionals from any proclivity to treat housing as just an object that provides a shelter and serves as a real estate asset.

Armed with the realisation that housing serves as a foundational structuring element in the production of better urbanism and a more vibrant and equitable socio-economic environment, the task at hand is focus more explicitly on housing's activation potential, and to ask what new types of socio-spatial, economic, or even political relationships and contributions to everyday urbanism that a given housing investment will produce, at what scale, and with what impacts on the future of cities. INFONAVIT can and should play a more active role in fostering this new type of thinking about housing – and a subject and not merely an object. And our research team has suggested that one way to change the way developers and governing authorities or mediating agencies,including INFONAVIT, will think about housing is to design new institutional arrangements to better link planners to housing producers at a scale smaller than the nation but larger than the municipality. We propose to call this new institution: the Urban Value Creation Platform, or UVCP. Rather than focusing just on densification, which may or may not be the most appropriate way to offer social housing, the UVCP would commit itself to the creation of what we call "urbanistically defensible" housing – defined as housing that contribute to a more networked,vibrant, sustainable, and economically dynamic urban environment.

5墨西哥梅里達(dá)地區(qū)低密度、 大規(guī)模建設(shè)的住房，由于位置不佳或其他問題，呈現(xiàn)半廢棄的破舊狀態(tài)/Low density,mass produced housing that is also dilapidated and semiabandoned, owing to bad location and other issues, Mérida,Mexico（攝影/Photos: ResearchTeam of Harvard GSD)

然而，因為這個量級的機(jī)構(gòu)改革屬于長期目標(biāo)，必將引起政治爭議并需幾十年時間才能完成，倡導(dǎo)更可持續(xù)發(fā)展的住房建設(shè)機(jī)制就必須在其他方面尋求能短期見效的新思路。因此，關(guān)心城市和國家經(jīng)濟(jì)經(jīng)濟(jì)繁榮的人就必須共同努力在上述的第二個目標(biāo)方面取得進(jìn)展，也就是改變市民、銀行家、城市規(guī)劃師、開發(fā)商和施工建設(shè)領(lǐng)域的專業(yè)人員對住房的認(rèn)識。他們中的大部分人所受的訓(xùn)練都只把住房當(dāng)做客觀對象來看待——即能保護(hù)人類免遭外界侵害的庇護(hù)空間；能以最小化建設(shè)成本讓使用者得到最大程度方便的居住類型；或一種建成造型，其物質(zhì)形態(tài)能對資源的可獲得程度、社會創(chuàng)造力、消費者欲望和市場動力產(chǎn)生影響等等。然而在過去和現(xiàn)在最受啟發(fā)的住房實驗中，就有一部分是由把住宅視為主體的人們建成的—，他們把住宅理解為能產(chǎn)生新的社會關(guān)系、形成其他空間地理、并對城市景觀進(jìn)行轉(zhuǎn)化的物質(zhì)建設(shè)過程，其轉(zhuǎn)化城市景觀的方式能激發(fā)更具活力的城市化過程，并由此為創(chuàng)造城市價值提供新的可能性。

認(rèn)識住宅主體維度的一種方式是通過其媒介來理解住房的建成形式，更準(zhǔn)確的表達(dá)是，從激活住房的社會和經(jīng)濟(jì)價值潛質(zhì)的角度來理解它。無論品質(zhì)優(yōu)劣，任何一種住房類型都能為其居住者、鄰里社區(qū)，甚至整個城市提供日常生活的結(jié)構(gòu)——與此同時也建立起社會空間背景，生活在其中的居民與其他城市居民的關(guān)系要么是孤立隔絕的，要么是聯(lián)為整體的。住宅通過不同的建筑形式及其特殊的地理位置構(gòu)成新的社會分配模式，其作用遠(yuǎn)大于提供庇護(hù)空間的功能。它們也會影響一個家庭、一組鄰里或一座城市內(nèi)部日常交流的社會關(guān)系。通過打破把住宅僅僅視為客體的思維禁錮，并確認(rèn)它和周圍外部世界的關(guān)系、及其對這些關(guān)系的影響力，房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)商和住宅建設(shè)者會找到革新住房形式和功能新方法，而不僅是被動的反向方式。從認(rèn)識到分隔住房內(nèi)外部活動的邊界是可穿透的、并常由人為建立的，到把許多專業(yè)人士從僅僅把住宅視為提供庇護(hù)和作為不動產(chǎn)的客體思想中解放出來，還有很長的路要走。

在領(lǐng)悟到在促成更合理城市化進(jìn)程和更具活力和公正公平的社會經(jīng)濟(jì)環(huán)境的過程中，住宅是決定性的基本因素的前提下，當(dāng)前的任務(wù)就是要更明確地關(guān)注如何激活住房潛質(zhì)，并思考特定住房投資項目能產(chǎn)生什么樣的新類型社會空間、經(jīng)濟(jì)或甚至政治關(guān)系，它能對日常城市化進(jìn)程做出什么貢獻(xiàn)，以及它們應(yīng)該在什么級別對未來城市產(chǎn)生怎樣的影響等問題。墨西哥勞動者全國住房基金委員會能夠也應(yīng)該在推動這些住宅認(rèn)識的新理念方面扮演更積極的角色——把住房當(dāng)作主體，而不僅是客體。我們的研究團(tuán)隊也提出建議，認(rèn)為改變包括墨西哥勞動者全國住房基金委員會等在內(nèi)的開發(fā)商、政府權(quán)威部門或協(xié)調(diào)機(jī)構(gòu)未來認(rèn)識住房的方法之一是設(shè)計新的制度方式，在介于國家和地方政府之間的尺度上把規(guī)劃師和住房建設(shè)者聯(lián)系在一起。我們提出這一新的度叫做“城市價值創(chuàng)造平臺”，或簡稱為UVCP。相比起僅僅著眼于住房密集化過程——它不一定是提供社會住房的最佳方式，“城市價值創(chuàng)造平臺”將投身于創(chuàng)造我們所謂具有“城市空間可防御性”的住房——即有助于形成更網(wǎng)絡(luò)化的、更活躍、更可持續(xù)和更具經(jīng)濟(jì)動力的城市環(huán)境。

“城市價值創(chuàng)造平臺”如何發(fā)揮作用

城市價值創(chuàng)造平臺將圍繞墨西哥勞動者全國住房基金委員會的建立初衷、作為服務(wù)于墨西哥工人、雇員和整個國家的金融機(jī)構(gòu)來運作，但其履行使命的方式則更多地與面對最近與快速城市化發(fā)展和城市蔓延相關(guān)挑戰(zhàn)的任務(wù)一致，即通過推動采用更全面的指標(biāo)數(shù)據(jù)，保證城市價值創(chuàng)造的影響成為抵押貸款項目的核心考量因素。究其本質(zhì)，城市價值創(chuàng)造平臺將會挑戰(zhàn)以不變應(yīng)萬變處理之前所有開發(fā)項目的方式，并其工作開展的前提是認(rèn)為通過與當(dāng)?shù)乩嫦嚓P(guān)者進(jìn)行目的更為明確的溝通，由墨西哥勞動者全國住房基金委員會的國家代表發(fā)揮關(guān)鍵作用進(jìn)行協(xié)調(diào)、召集多方對談，能讓資金的花費更具生產(chǎn)效率。通過這個平臺的協(xié)調(diào)作用，它能增加社會住房獲得抵押貸款支持的可能性，并為個人住房擁有者和更大范圍的城市環(huán)境創(chuàng)造財富。如果這個平臺能像設(shè)想的方式運作，就能以同時向墨西哥勞動者全國住房基金委員會回饋中期利益的方式平衡這些投資杠桿，同時保證實現(xiàn)金融償付能力，讓未來也有更多項目能獲得這些資金。

這個制度再設(shè)計方案來源于哈佛大學(xué)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的研究團(tuán)隊對案例進(jìn)行現(xiàn)場調(diào)研分析的理性成果。我們在最初力求認(rèn)定阻礙和促進(jìn)住宅密集化過程的各種因素時，有證據(jù)表明不同城市的運作機(jī)制也各不相同，同一資金補(bǔ)助項目無法在所有城市取得相同的效果，其原因在于許多特定背景的條件不同，其中包括先前的住房投資、對密集化定義的見解分歧、以及地方權(quán)威部門與墨西哥勞動者全國住房基金委員會共享相同的密集化優(yōu)先項目的程度也各不相同。這促使我們考慮如何超越聯(lián)邦政府授權(quán)金融激勵方式的單一設(shè)定條件，它無法顧及不同地方和地區(qū)住房市場的條件，也無法認(rèn)識到修改建筑風(fēng)格和住房類型以適應(yīng)地方氣候、文化、社會或就業(yè)條件的重要性。這份報告中記錄的研究也揭示出，在這些過程和其他住房供應(yīng)過程中，關(guān)鍵利益相關(guān)者之間的理想?yún)f(xié)調(diào)過程幾乎從未實現(xiàn)，其原因不僅歸咎于地方政府部門不愿在社會住房投資項目應(yīng)該如何在更廣泛地域背景下進(jìn)行選址方面加以思考，也在于在地方行動主體和更靠近中央的聯(lián)邦辦事處之間存在制度和市場邏輯方面的斷層，而后者通常又為促進(jìn)密集化過程提供資源和綱領(lǐng)性的指導(dǎo)。

我們的研究進(jìn)一步顯示，通過共享住宅密集化的目標(biāo)，在政府的不同層面（地方、大城市、各州、國家）把權(quán)威機(jī)構(gòu)和各種資源聯(lián)系在一起的可能性在不同的城市也有所不同，它取決于在大城市區(qū)域運作的地方政府?dāng)?shù)量，以及甚至是否存在管轄大城市區(qū)域范圍的協(xié)調(diào)機(jī)構(gòu)等等因素。甚至在那些絕無僅有的少數(shù)城市中——即能依靠正式成立的地區(qū)協(xié)調(diào)機(jī)構(gòu)進(jìn)行運作的城市，他們能以密集化作為目標(biāo)召集利益相關(guān)者共同商議的能力也十分有限，這在很大程度上歸咎于財政資源的匱乏和激勵不足，并且需要涉及的地方行政區(qū)數(shù)量過多。因此，在社會住房投資項目和更廣泛的區(qū)域規(guī)劃目標(biāo)之間進(jìn)行協(xié)調(diào)方面想要取得進(jìn)展，其首要因素就在于在關(guān)鍵行動主體之間進(jìn)行專門的或非正式的協(xié)商，在區(qū)級行政單元數(shù)量較少（無論是絕對數(shù)量還是相對數(shù)量）的城市較容易實現(xiàn)。

總而言之，這些發(fā)現(xiàn)推動了我們的研究團(tuán)隊為激勵更結(jié)構(gòu)化的協(xié)調(diào)程序?qū)ふ倚碌姆椒?，而避免不得不對制度或司法進(jìn)行改革的做法。我們由此提出，進(jìn)行協(xié)調(diào)的主體應(yīng)該積極參與到規(guī)模介于地方級別和聯(lián)邦政府級別之前的區(qū)域范圍的決策過程中去，他們還應(yīng)該能在所有政府層面召集和協(xié)調(diào)利益相關(guān)方開展對話，其方式應(yīng)能在聯(lián)邦政府、州政府和地方政府級別的項目之間取得平衡，能處理影響每一個大城市環(huán)境的具體推動因素和條件，以增加城市的資產(chǎn)，并創(chuàng)造個人和集體的財富。有鑒于此，我們認(rèn)為城市價值創(chuàng)造平臺能為實現(xiàn)這樣的協(xié)調(diào)目標(biāo)在體制方面提供獨特的契機(jī)。墨西哥勞動者全國住房基金委員會早已在各州政府設(shè)立了在中等規(guī)模尺度兼顧地方政府和聯(lián)邦政府利益的代理機(jī)構(gòu)；它有各類資源可用于圍繞新住房項目激勵各方對話和激發(fā)創(chuàng)造力的工作，尤其是那些以滿足地方城市具體需求為目標(biāo)的項目；它在更廣義的金融利益方面也需要確保其抵押貸款項目能創(chuàng)造城市價值，因為只有通過這些投資，才能增強(qiáng)國家經(jīng)濟(jì)的根本基礎(chǔ)。

How the Urban Value Creation Platform(UVCP) would work

The Urban Value Creation Platform would build its mission around INFONAVIT's founding principles as a financial institution intended to serve Mexican workers, employers, and the country as a whole, but bring this mission more in line with recent challenges associated with rapid and sprawling urbanisation by promoting the use of a wider range of metrics to ensure that urban value creation impacts become central to its mortgage programmes. In its essence, the UVCP would be able to challenge the one-size fits all mentality of prior programme development, and work under the assumption that through more purposeful engagement with local stakeholders, mediated by INFONAVIT state delegates serving a key role in coordinating and convening conversations,money can be more productively spent. Through its coordinating activities, the Platform could increase the likelihood that mortgage credit support for social housing will create assets for both the individual homeowner and the larger urban environment. If the Platform works as conceived, such investments can be leveraged in ways that also bring medium-term returns back to INFONAVIT, both ensuring financial solvency and making funds available for future projects.

This proposed institutional redesign finds its origins and rationale in the case study fieldwork undertaken by the Harvard-led research team. In first seeking to identify the barriers and enablers to densification, evidence suggested that different cities operated under different dynamics, and that the same subsidy programmes did not produce the same results in all cities, owing to a range of context-specific conditions including prior housing investments, differences in agreement over definitions of densification, and the extent to which local authorities shared the same densification priorities as INFONAVIT. This motivated a concern with moving beyond a single set of federallymandated financial incentives that cannot take into account different local and regional housing markets,or the importance of modifying building styles and housing typologies to accommodate local climactic,cultural, social, or employment conditions. Research documented in this report also revealed that the ideal of coordination among key stakeholders around these and other housing supply matters is rarely met, owing not just to the unwillingness of local governing authorities to think about the larger territorial context in which social housing investments should be located, but also because of an institutional and market logic disconnect between local actors and the more centralised federal agencies that offered the resources and programmatic guidelines to foster densification.

Our research further showed that opportunities for connecting authorities and resources on different levels of governance (local, metropolitan, state, and national) behind densification aims were differentially distributed across various cities, depending on the number of municipalities operating in the metropolitan area and whether metropolitan coordinating agencies even existed, among other factors. Even in those few cities able to rely on formally established territorial coordinating agencies, the capacities to bring stakeholders together behind densification aims were limited, owing in no small part to the absence of fiscal resources and incentives to do so, as well as the number of municipalities involved. Because of this, progress on coordination between social housing investments and larger territorial planning aims owed primality to ad hoc or informal negotiation among key actors, which was easier in cities with a small number of municipalities(both absolutely and relatively).

Overall, these findings motivated our research team to identify new ways of better incentivising a more structured coordination process, without having to turn to constitutional or juridical reform.We have thus proposed that coordinating bodies should be actively operating at an intermediate scale of territorial decision-making, situated somewhere inbetween the local and the federal, and they should be able to convene and coordinate conversations among stakeholders at all governance scales, in ways that allow a leveraging of federal, state, and local programmes that can address specific forces and conditions operating in each metropolitan environment to strengthen urban assets and create individual and collective value. In light of this, we feel that the Urban Value Creation Platform would offer a unique institutional opportunity to make such coordination aims real. INFONAVIT already has state delegates who work at the intermediate scale straddling local and federal concerns; it has the resources to incentivise conversations and inspire creativity around new housing projects specifically geared to fit local urban conditions; and it has a larger financial interest in insuring that its mortgage credit programmes will create urban value, because through such investments the basic fundamentals of the national economy are strengthened.

The proposed UVCP would be structured less as a hierarchical decision-making body and more as a convening assemblage on the urban level informed by a set of principles,which include: access, integration, activation,and collective goods. By insuring that housing production would respond to these priorities in a given metropolitan environment, INFONAVIT would be better able to extend its subsidies in value-creating manner. By mounting a dedicated"platform" capable of convening local actors,INFONAVIT would become a leader in fostering coordination, bringing all actors and sectors together to focus on a given territory, such as those confronting a metropolitan planning institute. We further suggest that the aim of the platform would be to identify and support for tactical projects that broker coordination through targeted incentives and strategic collaboration. This project-based strategy allows more flexibility than focusing on the formation of a strict urban plan(which can take years to write and approve, and may not actually be followed in reality even when it does exist). More importantly, it allows a single or a set of projects to create momentum for value-generative approaches to housing development that serve to benefit a broader constituency and can propel a more innovative and self-sustaining model for production into the future.

6 墨西哥勞動者全國住房基金會住宅項目/The INFONAVIT housing project（攝影/Photo: Livia Corona）

我們設(shè)計的城市價值創(chuàng)造平臺的組織結(jié)構(gòu)會形成不那么等級森嚴(yán)的決策機(jī)構(gòu)，而更像是一個在城市尺度上遵從一系列原則、具有召集功能的集合體，這些原則包括——交通便利性、整體性、激活作用和集體財產(chǎn)。通過確保在某個大城市環(huán)境下的住房生產(chǎn)建設(shè)能夠響應(yīng)這些優(yōu)先事項，墨西哥勞動者全國住房基金委員會最好能把資金補(bǔ)貼的項目拓展為創(chuàng)造價值的方式。通過增設(shè)能召集地方行動主體的、精心設(shè)計的“平臺”，墨西哥勞動者全國住房基金委員會能成在促進(jìn)協(xié)調(diào)、召集所有行動主體和所有部門——如那些反對大城市規(guī)劃的機(jī)構(gòu)——共同關(guān)注特定區(qū)域方面成為領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者。我們更進(jìn)一步建議，這個平臺的目標(biāo)是找到那些通過定向激勵和戰(zhàn)略合作的方式以協(xié)調(diào)人身份促成多方協(xié)調(diào)的戰(zhàn)略合作項目，并為其提供支持。這種以項目為本的策略具有更大的靈活性，而不是關(guān)注編制條款嚴(yán)格的城市規(guī)劃（這些規(guī)劃可能經(jīng)年累月才能完成編制和批準(zhǔn)的過程，并很可能根本得不到落實）。更重要的是，這個策略能為單個項目或一系列項目創(chuàng)造出為住房開發(fā)創(chuàng)造價值的動力，能讓更廣大的選區(qū)獲得利益，并能為推動形成更具創(chuàng)新性和自給自足的未來住房建設(shè)模型。

結(jié)語

考慮到最近安德烈斯·曼努埃爾·洛佩斯·奧夫拉多爾當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)，現(xiàn)在正是在墨西哥推廣這樣一項體制創(chuàng)新的良好時機(jī)。作為墨西哥市的前市長，這位政治家一直以來都承諾要在住房方面實施更進(jìn)步的社會政策，其競選綱領(lǐng)也表明他對墨西哥日益擴(kuò)大的不平等現(xiàn)象甚為關(guān)心，因此洛佩斯·奧夫拉多爾總統(tǒng)可以能夠重塑墨西哥勞動者全國住房基金委員會的使命。任何類似的努力都和墨西哥最近升溫的有關(guān)聯(lián)邦制度的討論和人們越來越關(guān)注大城市行政管理失效問題的現(xiàn)象相吻合3）。在過去的6年里，對于哪些城市決策應(yīng)該下放到地方（行政區(qū)級別或是州級）而哪些應(yīng)該由國家決策也有越來越多的討論。我們也已見到，最近主要的大城市區(qū)域（如墨西哥市）提出了針對城市住房和商業(yè)開發(fā)應(yīng)通過土地增值稅的方式收稅，因而產(chǎn)生了政治矛盾，這項政策的目的是為了建立基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)的基金，實現(xiàn)更可持續(xù)的城市化進(jìn)程。我們提出的城市價值創(chuàng)造平臺能讓許多這樣的優(yōu)先事項得到探討并得以實現(xiàn)，而不需要涉入對憲法進(jìn)行根本修改的政治險境。實際上，這一平臺能在所有這些政府層面形成新的對話，而不需要把任何當(dāng)選的權(quán)威機(jī)構(gòu)撇在一邊。它也能在加強(qiáng)呼吁下放決策權(quán)限的民主訴求的同時，與國家層面保持聯(lián)系，并從國家層面進(jìn)行統(tǒng)籌。同樣重要的是，由于最近的宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)也有部分源于大規(guī)模過度城市化進(jìn)程的因素，城市價值創(chuàng)造平臺的活動也找到了方法，為投資城市和城市化進(jìn)程的項目和經(jīng)濟(jì)償付能力與經(jīng)濟(jì)繁榮重新聯(lián)系在一起。通過在城市層面關(guān)注對目標(biāo)區(qū)位的戰(zhàn)略投資——城市價值創(chuàng)造平臺能實現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)——墨西哥有可能扭轉(zhuǎn)由過度建設(shè)和城市蔓延帶來的經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會和環(huán)境問題。就其本身而言，它對那些質(zhì)疑誰在聯(lián)邦社會住房項目和投資中獲益、誰又受損的批評給出了積極和具有建設(shè)性的反饋，為地方的利益相關(guān)者提供了更積極參與此類決策、從而獲取更多主動權(quán)的可能性?！?/p>

Epilogue

In Mexico, now appears to be just the right moment for such an institutional innovation, with the recent election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador.A former mayor of Mexico City, a politician who has long articulated a commitment to progressive social policy in housing, and someone whose campaign showed itself to be deeply concerned with growing inequality in Mexico, President López Obrador could recast the mandate of INFONAVIT. Any such efforts would dovetail with recent heated debates over federalism in Mexico, and the growing concerns over the failures of metropolitan governance.3） Over the past six years, there has been growing discussion of which urban policy decisions should be made locally(either at the municipality or the State) and which ones nationally. We also have seen political conflict over recent efforts by major metropolitan areas (Mexico City for example) to tax or charge urban housing and commercial developers via land value capture mechanisms so as to generate funds for infrastructure investments that can facilitate more sustainable urbanism. The proposed UVC Platform allows many of these priorities to be discussed and achieved without having to enter the treacherous political terrain of seeking fundamental changes in the Constitution. Indeed, the proposed UVC Platform allows for a new conversation across all these levels of governance without sidetracking any single set of elected authorities. It also strengthens the democratic calls for bringing decision making closer to the ground while also keeping connection to and mediated oversight from the national scale.Just as important, because the recent macroeconomic crisis finds some of its roots in massive over-urbanisation, UVC Platform activities also a path forward in re-linking investments in cities and urbanisation to economic solvency and prosperity.By paying attention to strategic investments in targeted locations at the level of the cities –something that will be possible through the UVC Platform activities – Mexico may be able to reverse the economic, social, and environmental problems associate with overbuilding and sprawl. As such, it will provide a positive and productive response to critics who have raised questions over who gains and who loses from federal social housing programmes and investments, offering opportunities for local stakeholders to be involved in such decisions more actively, thus taking more ownership of such decisions.□

注釋/Notes

1）這項研究針對墨西哥的7座不同城市展開，如需獲得更詳盡的項目信息，請聯(lián)系作者：ddavis@gsd.harvard.edu/For more information on this initiative,which built on the study of 7 different cities in Mexico,please contact the author at: ddavis@gsd.harvard.edu.

2）最終報告能在“墨西哥城市倡議”網(wǎng)站獲得/Access to the final report is available online via the Mexican Cities Initiative website: https://research.gsd.harvard.edu/mci/portfolio/building-better-cities/

3）盡管墨西哥聯(lián)邦政府有特殊基金支持大城市項目，在地方政府、州政府和聯(lián)邦政府部門之間的政治緊張關(guān)系已經(jīng)妨礙了任何真正有效的大城市政府的存在。在墨西哥，人們可能認(rèn)為在這些方面取得最長足進(jìn)步的是瓜達(dá)拉哈拉，它也是我們的案例研究對象之一。但即使在這個案例中，也是地方政府（瓜達(dá)拉哈拉）市長的個人魅力和社會關(guān)系左右著大城市決策的指定，而不是真正的區(qū)域平臺或運作良好的協(xié)調(diào)機(jī)制。/Although the Mexican federal government has special funds to support Metropolitan projects, the strong political tensions between municipalities, states,and federal governing authorities gets in the way of any truly effective metropolitan governance institutions.In Mexico, one might speculate that the most progress in these regards has been undertaken in Guadalajara,one of our case studies. But even in this instance, it is a personal charisma and relationships of the Mayor of one of the municipalities (Guadalajara) that is usually behind Metropolitan policymaking, not any truly shared territorial platform or well institutionalised coordinating capacity.